« June 2008 | Main Blog Page | August 2008 »

July 31, 2008

"Fair and Humane" Immigration Policy

Throughout American history, immigrants facing economic hardship, exploitation and nativism alongside the opportunity for a better life than was available in their countries of origin have found solace and support in the faith community, and today is no different.

This week, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Relief Services cosponsored "Renewing Hope, Seeking Justice" to call for fairer, more humane immigration policy. Based on news reports, conference leaders are balancing an appropriately critical description of our current situation and calls for political solutions. Especially encouraging is Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony's call to make immigration reform a top political issue in the campaign.

When families are broken up, people are being rounded up like cattle in and detained in inhuman conditions, and immigrants are getting locked up for months on end before being deported, we're dealing with more than a law-and-order issue, we're dealing with a moral one. It's good to see the Catholic church continuing its tradition of engaging it.

July 30, 2008

Saperstein: Spiritual and Social Must Connect

At Progressive and Religious, FPL friend Robby Joneshosts a podcast with Rabbi David Saperstein, Director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Throughout, Saperstein articulately emphasizes the connection between faith and social justice:

There is hardly a classic text of Judaism that does not resound with both spiritual meaning and God’s call for us to be engaged in creating a better world, the two major themes from my own life. So you can open up almost any story in the Bible and find such themes – read any psalm, any proverb, any of the stories of the prophets – and feel this deep spiritual resonance that speaks across the centuries in the embodiment of this call that we are capable and called to create a more just and fair world for humanity.

Saperstein describes two challenges that lie ahead for religious progressives -- Keeping focus on the spiritual truths which catalyze their social views:

We have lost somewhat the deep religious grounding of the social gospel tradition in the Christian community, of the prophetic tradition in the Jewish community, that our engagement in responding to the call of our texts and our God and our religions for us to be God’s partners in creating a better world is a deeply and profoundly religious task. And working to recapture that is I think the central challenge.

...and ensuring their voices receive an equal hearing in the public square:

Why is it that the media defaults to this notion of authenticity and that somehow the religious vote, the religious voice is those who are fundamentalist in our society? This is a very difficult challenge for genuinely religious, theologically liberal believers to grapple with and has proved very difficult, particularly in the last 50 years, as media has fed this bias, for them to strongly perpetuate their vision of religion. And I think will remain in the 21st century a central challenge for progressive religion.

Click here for the full discussion with one of America's foremost religious leaders

July 29, 2008

Holding the Next President Accountable on Poverty

Words become cheap currency on the campaign trail. They're thrown about, dissected and retracted to the point that some voters judge them meaningless. But action is always preceded by words.

Setting the stage for real solutions on poverty, a diverse group of religious leaders has put the candidates on notice that their words matter. They're telling Sens. McCain and Obama that mere lip service to this moral issue just won't do.

Nine prominent faith leaders who lead organizations representing millions of people, inspired by their shared values, sent a letter to both presidential campaigns asking that each nominating convention include a primetime speech on poverty and each candidate deliver a plan "to address poverty and opportunity in America over the next decade."

The letter recognizes that the government and faith communities must work together to turn the tide:

As people of faith, we believe that it is immoral to ignore our nation’s most vulnerable populations. As Americans, we believe enduring poverty undermines our country’s economic strength and prosperity. Every day, faith organizations serve individuals in need within our communities. But our efforts to sustain our brothers and sisters living in poverty must be complemented with a serious plan from our political leaders to reduce the number of needy.
This partnership is specifically laid out in their call to the candidates:
In the weeks leading up to the election, the interfaith community will be mobilizing our networks and starting a national conversation in churches, synagogues, and mosques--in the shelters and soup kitchens of our faith-based service providers, and among people of faith across our great nation. We will be drawing from our shared scriptures and commitment to our fellow beings, working to build the political and public will to combat poverty in the United States. We hope you will do the same from the podium at your party’s convention this summer.
Focusing on poverty is not just a moral imperative for the candidates---it also makes good political sense. With $4 gas, rising food costs and the continuing shame of 47 million Americans without health care, our national senses are unusually heightened to the threat of poverty. Whoever our next president is must actively engage poverty now and going forward; people of faith will be listening.

We Believe Colorado: Defeating Discrimination in Denver

We Believe Colorado, a diverse interfaith coalition of religious leaders working to change the values debate, is mobilizing the Denver faith community to defeat Denver Initiated Question 100--a ballot initiative that, if passed, would require police to impound the cars of unlicensed drivers "suspected of being an illegal alien." As We Believe Colorado and other immigrants’ rights advocates point out, the measure, which will be on the Denver primary ballot on August 12, all but mandates racial profiling and acts as a divisive force in the community.

At a July 28 press conference co-coordinated by FPL, Muslim, Christian and Jewish leaders from Latino, white and black backgrounds stood as one to say that the Denver faith community opposes discrimination and racial profiling, and that they're mobilizing their congregations to defeat Initiated Question 100. It's a great example of the faith community taking action in the public square for the common good.

July 28, 2008

UPDATED: Condolences to Tennessee Valley

By now you've no doubt heard that yesterday a disaffected, deranged man opened fire on Tennessee Valley Unitarian Church in Knoxville, Tennessee, killing two people and injuring five others during Sunday service. As I post this, their web site asks only for prayers.

A blog collecting messages of support for the Knoxville Unitarian community can be found here, and Unitarian Universalist Association President Rev. William J. Sinkford released a statement on the UUA web site, which also now has a Relief Fund donation page.

Numerous sources have reported that the shooter attacked because he hated liberals, the liberal movement and gays, and knew TVUC to be a welcoming environment for all three. A different motive would not bring back the dead or heal the wounded, but the fact that the victims were singled out because of their religious beliefs compounds the tragedy. We offer our prayers, deepest sympathy and solidarity.

TUESDAY MORNING UPDATE: The AP is reporting that three victims have been taken off the critical condition list.

July 23, 2008

Why we're going to Saddleback

To answer a question from my friend Pastor Dan, FPL is cosponsoring the August 16 Saddleback Forum to give the candidates another opportunity to talk to religious voters about the issues and their beliefs, and to do so in a way that furthers our effort to expand the values debate in American politics. As happened at the Compassion Forum (about which I appreciate Dan's kind words), the extended format and questions from a faith perspective will enable a dialogue that breaks free of the binary, soundbite-driven noise we're used to seeing on tv in an election year. Given some of the highlights of this year's traditional "debates", the Saddleback Forum would be a welcome change even if it were a 59-minute campaign commercial. And it won't be.

What it will be is a substantive discussion of topics addressed in the Compassion Forum, such as climate change and AIDS and poverty and principles of leadership.

Whether Rick Warren is a liberal or a conservative or something in between is beside the point. As Dan says, one can point to Rick's conservative positions on some issues and his more progressive views on others. That's part of what recommends him and Saddleback as host -- he's active on compassion issues and is not a reliable and traditional partisan. If he were, no way would both candidates agree to participate. Further recommending Rick is his reach beyond the evangelical community -- selling 20 million books entails crossing denominational lines. (FWIW, I've talked to three mainline pastors today who spoke of The Purpose Driven Life's popularity in their circles.)

From our end, promoting an event that reflects and furthers the changing values debate is an end in itself, but talk about who could benefit from it is also a useful exercise. Dan mentions a recent Pew Poll showing that mainliners, Catholics and evangelicals are all viable targets this year. McCain trails Bush's numbers by at least 4 points among all three groups, Obama is 7 points behind Kerry with Catholics but tied with his evangelical and mainline numbers, and the percentages of "don't know"'s has tripled among evangelicals and Catholics and doubled among mainliners. If the campaigns weren't looking for ways to win over these undecideds, they wouldn't be doing their jobs. Cosponsoring an event that gives them an opportunity to do so by addressing compassion issues like AIDS, climate change, human rights and poverty is a great way to help change the values debate, and we're excited to do so.

Who Speaks for Islam?

Irshad Manji, the internationally best-selling author of The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in her Faith, and Dalia Mogahed, Senior Analyst and Executive Director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, discuss the system of leadership in Islam with the Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg. This clip is from earlier this month at The Aspen Institute in Colorado.

















July 22, 2008

Spiritual Ends and Political Means

The news is that that Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama will "make their first joint 2008 campaign appearance to an audience of Christian activists at a Southern Baptist church. "

Here's Joel Hunter, "senior pastor of Northland, A Church Distributed, in Longwood, Florida, and author of A NEW KIND OF CONSERVATIVE, talks to PBS' Religion & Ethics program about religion's role in the 2008 presidential election and the political and religious interests of a new generation of young evangelicals."

According to the Associated Baptist Press,

The presidential candidates have agreed to participate in a "compassion forum" at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif. on August 16. Saddleback Pastor Rick Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, extended the invitation. Warren will moderate the forum, which will focus on moral-values issues -- such as poverty, the environment and global AIDS relief -- in which many centrist and younger evangelicals have taken an increasing interest.

July 21, 2008

FPL Sponsors Second Presidential Candidates Forum!

As reported in today's New York Times, Faith In Public Life is cosponsoring Senators Obama and McCain's first joint event of the campaign, the Saddleback Civil Forum on Compassion and Faith, on August 16th.

Much like The Compassion Forum at Messiah College, which brought together diverse faith leaders and Senators Clinton and Obama in April for an unprecedented in-depth conversation, the Saddleback forum will focus on pressing moral issues on which people of faith are taking action -- such as HIV/AIDS, poverty, climate change, and human rights.

We'll be posting regular updates on event details between now and August 16. Subscribe to our RSS feed to get the latest information as soon it's published!

July 17, 2008

African Lives vs. a Tank of Gas

If the religious right isn't quite gone yet, messaging like this should only hasten its demise.

Monday, Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council sent out an email message blasting the PEPFAR (AIDS relief) bill. In a bizarre turn, it compliments the program's success against the epidemic, but then criticizes the Senate for expanding it. Who knew the notion of "too much of a good thing" would apply to life-saving AIDS treatment and prevention?

PEPFAR is a very popular program, and AIDS relief is a top priority for ideologically diverse people of faith. Former Bush adviser Michael Gerson has taken his fellow conservatives to task for holding up this critical funding.

While not a perfect program, PEPFAR has generally been successful, and the new bill hopes to build on this success, setting a treatment goal of 3 million people. For those 3 million individuals, PEPFAR can make a life-or-death difference.

What does PEPFAR mean for Tony Perkins?

Dollar signs, apparently. And cash register sounds.

From the subject line "Cha-Ching!" to the accompanying graphic (a bag of money with a map of Africa superimposed on it) FRC shows a tin ear and little regard for the compassion-motivated concerns of people of faith.

This year Perkins has made an energetic effort to prove his (and the Religious Right's more generally) engagement with compassion issues. He even went so far as to write a book with Bishop Harry with the stated goal to "expand the religious Right's influence into immigration policy, poverty and social justice, racial reconciliation, and global warming."

Does Perkins really believe that statements like

For some context on how enormous the [PEPFAR] entitlement is, consider this. Americans use about 384.7 million gallons of gas a day. With prices at $4 a gallon, $50 billion would give every U.S. driver about 32 days of free gas!

are compatible with that goal?

While it's tempting to tap into the (understandable) economic anxiety many Americans are feeling right now, "life-saving AIDS treatments are kinda pricey" falls flat as a moral message. Diverse people of faith agree that AIDS relief is one of the most pressing moral issues of our time, and using our worries about prices at the pump to discredit a program that saves millions of lives suggests a lack of commitment to this commendable cause.

Sharing the Earth - A Jewish, Evangelical Conversation

Rabbi Andrea Cohen-Kiener, director of Interreligious Eco-Justice Network, Connecticut's Interfaith Power and Light is the spiritual leader of Congregation Pnai Or of Central Conn. She is author of Life on Earth: A User's Guide, and For All Who Call: A Guide to Enhancing Prayer Instruction in the Jewish Community. She is also the translator of Conscious Community, A Guide to Spiritual Development, written in the early years of World War II by Rabbi Kalanymous Kalman Shapira.

Dr. Lowell “Rusty” Pritchard, a resource economist, is the National Director of Outreach for the Evangelical Environmental Network and the editor of Creation Care magazine, a Christian environmental quarterly.

Andrea Cohen-Kiener: Does your mandate for climate change come from Genesis?

Rusty Pritchard: Yes, but as an Evangelical Christian, I often go to John 3:16 which starts off, “for God so loved the world.” Most Evangelicals hear that word “world” and think it means all the people in the world. But the word is cosmos. And it fits with the story of creation in Genesis that God loves his whole creation.

Cohen-Kiener
: We need to acknowledge our grandeur and our smallness simultaneously. I've experienced a resistance in the Jewish community to environmental efforts; I've heard often over the past ten years, “we have more important issues to address.” Have you experienced similar speed bumps?

Pritchard: The biggest speed bump is a limited conception of God, and a comfortable conservatism that is scared of change. I ask people, “what is it that conservatives should be conserving?” Of course we need to conserve natural resources, families and the ability of families to make a living. We need also to conserve beautiful places, including small towns and farms, all that makes human civilization good and beautiful and diverse. We can respect diversity because it's a blessing from God. That takes us past the shallow conservatism of fearing new ideas and deeper to a conservatism that says we ought to do our best to take care of the natural world.

Cohen-Kiener
: In my community, there are primarily two speed bumps. First, my people are a minority and there's a natural tendency toward particularism — taking care first of oneself, one's people, one's family. The universalism of environmental makes some Jews feel it's not an essentially Jewish issue.

Pritchard: Even though it's not demographically true, Evangelicals also feel like an embattled minority culture. Our dominant myth is that we're a faithful remnant that acknowledges the truth even though the world has gone another direction. Until recently, our community viewed environmentalism as a liberal issue, or as a popular fad. But because our theology says that God's character can be seen in the created world, many conservative Christians are beginning to be concerned about creation care. In that view, destroying creation and permitting ecological degradation are like ripping pages out of scripture.

Cohen-Kiener: Let's talk about the pervasive value of consumerism in our culture, our deep hungers of the spirit and flesh. Our culture is so illiterate about the hungers of the spirit that we try to fill up that hunger with a new car or fancy vacation. And we're polluting the planet in that effort. We need a counterbalance to consumerism.

Pritchard: I agree. We have such a fundamental addiction to consuming. The Jewish Sabbath is an antidote to that hunger. It helps us test what we can give up from material culture. The Sabbath idea jumps out of every part of Scripture — the rhythms of rest and satisfaction and enjoyment of the created order are meant to pervade all of our lives. There are weekly rhythms and cycles of seven years and the jubilee cycle of 49 years, all celebrating the sufficiency and the providence of God, where we rest and enjoy and encounter with delight the works of God. The Fourth Commandment requires not only your rest, but the rest of all of your household, including everyone who works for you and all of your animals. And the land itself. It demands we not push to the limits our ecological systems or the people who work for us.

I've just returned from a pastors' conference in New York City where some of the urban churches are trying to reclaim the idea of cities as good places. Evangelicals generally hold an anti-urban bias that comes from a vision of our faith as a remnant existing outside of the mainstream of culture. There's an inability to see cities as places that need investment and work, as places to build meaningful community. In a highly urbanized culture we have to rethink our environmental work — conserving not only wilderness or endangered species but also building sustainable communities. I wonder whether there's something to learn there from Jewish tradition, which thrives in cities.

Cohen-Kiener
: A city is a manmade place as opposed to the wild. It raises questions about how to create sustainable structures.

Pritchard: The pastor of Church of the Redeemer in New York City, Tim Keller, is trying to redefine a city to include small towns throughout the agricultural landscape. He envisions multiuse, walkable, human settlements that have density and diversity. Those settlements can be megacities or smaller places where people live in community, and where culture is created. God either wants us in the country or in the city, but I'm not sure we should try to mix the two, as in a suburb.

Cohen-Kiener: That brings us to another, related, issue, environmental justice, and questions about air quality, transfer stations, garbage dumps, what's called source point pollution, which is almost always located around the world in nonwhite population centers.

Pritchard: The worst stuff gets dumped on the poorest communities and on ethnic minorities. Within blocks of our church there's a toxic waste facility, a trash transfer station, chemical plant, an impoundment lot for towed vehicles.

Cohen-Kiener: When we talk about environmental justice we need to do so in partnership with the poor and with the “other.” If there was a garbage transfer station in the western suburbs of Hartford, Connecticut where I'm sitting right now people would be much more avid in their support of reduce, reuse, recycle and pre-cycle. The technology and the market forces would come into play more quickly if the consequences were borne evenly and appropriately.

Pritchard: Maybe we need a public policy that puts toxic waste treatment facilities and landfills only in the zip codes with the highest per capita income.

Systems and institutions can be sinful in ways different than individuals, who are filled with flaws like jealously, pride, and rage. Environmental issues open a window onto the economic and social systems that are unjust and often racist. As an economist, I think our public policies and the ways businesses operate will change once they face the costs of the pollution that they now get to dispose of largely for free. Climate policy may involve getting the right price on carbon dioxide so that it becomes a part of the price of all of the goods that we buy and sell and therefore we implicitly take it into account even if we aren't explicitly looking for the greenest option. It must hit us in our pocketbook. We need to think explicitly about challenging businesses to be not just responsive to price signals and creating value for their shareholders but to think about ethics in a much broader sense and to allow their business models to be contaminated by their sense of morality and not pretend that there is this huge divide that businesses are sort of amoral institutions.

Cohen-Kiener: Influencing minds and hearts is going to open a very powerful, passionate, articulate, empowered wellspring as we reexamine what we really need, what we really want, what really makes us feel wealthy and safe. It's going to look like spending less and having less. It's going to feel like more wealth. The root of this sin is disconnection. And the cure is connection.

Republished with permission from Sh’ma: A Journal of Jewish Responsibility (www.shma.com) June 2008.

July 16, 2008

Catholic Voters: this isn't 2004 anymore

We've come a long way in just four years.

For me, the 2004 election cycle was a painful experience. As a Catholic, I was deeply frustrated by the way partisan political operatives reduced my church's rich and diverse social tradition to a small set of so-called "non-negotiable" issues.

This year feels much different thanks in large part to events like this weekend's Convention for the Common Good in Philadelphia.

I was blessed to have been part of this gathering of over 800 Catholic activists committed to reclaiming their role as faithful citizens.

I could go on and on about my experience at the Convention--which was led by NETWORK (disclosure: I sit on the board of the NETWORK Education Program) and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good--but what struck me most was the spirit of hope and empowerment that permeated the entire weekend.

As we affirmed the Platform for the Common Good (itself the product of months of preparation and community engagement) I lost any last doubts I still might have had that this year would be different, better. Being with that community this weekend and participating in the rituals of faith-filled democracy had an almost sacramental quality. I know that this year, Catholic voters will find the grace to stand up for the fullness of our faith tradition against those who would confine it to a simple partisan agenda.

Of course, being Catholic, we know that it takes more than a great document to make real change. It also takes works, er, work.

With this in mind, the Convention for the Common Good birthed votethecommongood.com, an online hub for organizing around the platform complete with a form to endorse it and many other ways to take action.

July 15, 2008

Stuck in a moment

A new Pew Research Center study confirms much of this faith-and-politics newshound's beef with the media. The report is packed with too many noteworthy findings for one blog post, but the most salient was that coverage is episodic and narrow, for Republican candidates

More than one-third (35%) of all religion-related campaign stories focused on Romney, a Mormon, who ultimately lost his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. Most of Romney’s coverage (66%) occurred in December 2007 when he gave his “Faith in America” speech.

as well as Democrats:

An influence early on in the campaign, Wright would become a major part of the media story line, or press narrative, for Obama. In the first four months of 2008 – roughly the period when the controversy surrounding Wright’s sermons began to develop traction – Obama was the focal point of 55% of religion-related campaign stories. In about half of these stories (47%), Wright was a lead newsmaker as well, often accompanying Obama in the headline or lead.

In sum:

These findings suggest a continuing discomfort among news organizations in tackling deep questions of how candidates’ personal faith may influence their public leadership. When the press does cover such stories, it tends to focus on discrete events – such as a speech, video or TV appearance – rather than the underlying connections, and often the coverage is fairly short-lived.

The unstated downside here is that this type of coverage diminishes the incentive for candidates to connect their faith to their platforms. The study's sample only extended through April, so it's possible that coverage of faith-based initiatives has tilted things for the better, but the recent overinflation of James Dobson's attacks and the continuing fascination with the horse-race aspect of religious outreach suggest that journalism needs a new paradigm for religion and politics.

What's Important to Christian Latin@s?

h/t CrossLeft.

Reacting to recent visits by Sens. McCain and Obama to the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy community in the U.S., Kety Esquivel of The Sanctuary and CrossLeft, talks about the spectrum of concerns among Christian Latin@s, including health care, immigration, and education.

View The Sanctuary's Candidate Questionnaire.

July 14, 2008

Changing the tone on immigration

Alien. Illegal immigrant. Undocumented worker. Human being.

When we talk about immigration, which phrase is most often left out?

More than perhaps any other issue, immigration can devolve into back-and-forth rhetoric that denies the humanity of its subjects, casting them as faceless, nameless problems rather than people with real hopes and fears. In a debate that often references what language people speak, we allow the language of immigration to become undignified and un-dignifying.

Fortunately, affirming humanity continues to be a top priority for people of faith looking to shape immigration policy. A courageous group of Iowa faith leaders, for example, recently called for a more humane policy by discussing "basic human decency" and expressing the need to respond to "God’s call to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and visit the imprisoned," according to Christian Post's Ethan Cole.

We're hearing positive rhetoric from the presidential candidates too. God-o-meter points out a new McCain ad which refers to Latino immigrants as "God's children." The San Diego Union-Tribune relays Sen. Obama's words in a recent speech:

“They're counting on us to stop the hateful rhetoric that is filling our airwaves – rhetoric that poisons our political discourse, degrades our democracy and has no place in this great nation,” Obama said. “They're counting on us to rise above fear and demagoguery and pettiness and partisanship and finally enact comprehensive immigration reform.”

This improved tone is finally starting to eclipse the hateful rhetoric surrounding comprehensive immigration reform and presidential primary ads that blamed immigrants for everything from economic hardship to terrorism. McCain and Obama should be encouraged to continue down a path of reason and compassion in the hopes that others, from thought leaders to everyday folks, will follow suit.

July 10, 2008

"CW is wrong": Poverty Matters

How many different ways can it be said? The American people care about poverty.

Yesterday, Politico's Alexander Burns cited several recent polls that present two pieces of good news to those who see economic injustice as a national priority.

First, we are hearing more about poverty. Comparing 2007 with 2003 ("the last pre-presidential year"), Spotlight on Poverty shows 145% increase in coverage of, as Burns writes, "poverty as a political issue."

What's even better news is that the public still wants more. In Spotlight on Poverty's newest poll, 56% of those surveyed said the media has failed to devote enough time to poverty in the current presidential campaign. Burns quotes Tom Freedman, of SOP and a former White House aide:

“The poll tends to show that the political conventional wisdom that voters don’t care about this issue is wrong."

Burns writes:

Freedman sees several possible explanations for the uptick in public interest, and in media coverage. Presidential candidates have been talking more about the issue. Evangelicals have gotten more engaged with anti-poverty activism. And with the “economy tightening,” Freedman said, it makes sense that voters would want to hear more about anti-poverty policies.

And poverty is not just a progressive issue, Freedman and fellow analyst John Bridgeland say. From the Politico:

“Even among Republicans and Democrats, the answers were similar,” they wrote. “A majority of each felt there hadn’t been [an] adequate amount of time spent on the topic.”

That Americans are engaging this issue isn't a well-kept secret. In addition to these polls, the recent Pew study showed that a majority of Americans, across all religious groups, want the government to do more for the needy. After Super Tuesday, Faith in Public Life polls from Missouri and Tennessee showed that evangelical voters of both parties want a broad agenda that includes "ending poverty."

What, then, should we think when religious or political leaders ignore poverty and argue that the "people" really want to talk about wedge issues like abortion or same-sex marriage? Is it simply ignorance? Or a deliberate move to sweep a deeply important issue under the rug to advance their own agenda? Whatever the case, these polls show that neglecting poverty is neglecting the will of the people.

July 09, 2008

Food for thought on food stamps

Thought (and hopefully action)-provoking stuff from Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's Washington Post, "A Week of Hunger". With clarity and punch, he argues for the expansion of food stamps as a moral imperative and "the most direct way to reduce hunger in America."

His approach is so uncomplicated it should be obvious and so direct it seems revolutionary. There is a 10 million person gap between those who receive food stamps and those who need them, he says, and because of computer records, "we also know that most benefits are used up by the third week of the month, leaving many families to scramble for other sources of food."

Making both a fiscal and moral case for expansion:

Hunger exacts a social cost. Hungry adults miss more work and consume more health care. Hungry children tend to be sicker, absent from school more often and more prone to getting into more trouble. Larry Brown of the Harvard School of Public Health calculates that the total price tag of hunger to American society is about $90 billion a year. In contrast, Brown estimates it would only cost about $10 billion to $12 billion a year to "virtually end hunger in our nation."

And this raises a moral issue. We have in place an automated food stamp program that is generally efficient and effective. We know it could be expanded with little increase in overhead. And we know with precision when its benefit runs out each month. So how is it then possible to justify funding three weeks of food instead of four? What additional dependence, what added moral hazard could a full month of eating possibly create?

It's heartening to see someone in Gerson's position---a member of the mainstream media and a conservative, no less---advocating for an issue usually championed by progressives. In doing so, he manages to break stereotypes and show the bridges being built around this moral issue. This is the straightforward, cooperative dialogue we need to foster common good politics.

July 08, 2008

Who's declaring "American Values"?

At last week's Denver huddle where "about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted," a document boldly titled "Declaration of American Values" was also birthed. Its thesis:

It is imperative that people of strong Biblical faith stand in unity to affirm the core consensus values that do serve as the basis of America's greatness.

With that in mind, the drafters affirmed 10 values ranging from the sanctity of human life and traditional marriage to gun rights and the perils of progressive taxation.

But, in reading through the accounts, I've been hard-pressed to find names of more than about 20 individuals involved. Though you can see the document on various websites, there appears to be no public list of its signatories.

Is this grand declaration a portrait of any new Evangelical leaders' worldview, or is it just a repackaging of ideas from the old guard? Right now, it's impossible to tell. Until more information is released, the meeting and its product resembles one of the smoke-filled rooms where political bosses used to make their decisions (though, in this case, I'm sure the room was smoke-free).

Compare this with two other recent declarations: An Evangelical Manifesto and An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture, both of which allow the curious to read their full lists of John and Jane Hancocks.

The Declaration of American Values ends with the phrase: “We hereby pledge our names, our lives, and our sacred honor to this Declaration of American Values.” Shouldn't they make such a solemn pledge in public?

Character, Not Culture War

A new survey of evangelical leaders suggests that choosing a candidate for this group is not about party, not about any single issue -- but foremost, about character and conviction.

While many respondents specifically mentioned judicial appointments; compassion for the poor, and opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage as issues important to their vote, the leading answer to the poll question, “How do you decide which candidate to vote for?” was summarized this way:

“Policy proposals by candidates are likely to run into all kinds of snags—legislative, bureaucratic, judicial and regulatory. Don’t expect that a candidate can really deliver on most promises. But, the virtues and character strengths that a candidate has developed will remain constant. Indeed, those character strengths may be intensified by opposition. So judge a candidate on character as much or more than on policy proposals.

National Association of Evangelicals President Leith Anderson's reflection on the survey results -- “I couldn’t guess which way many [evangelicals] will vote” -- is consistent with recent polls and evidence indicating that the evangelical vote is "very much up for grabs" this year (as John Green of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life puts it).

Caring most about character sounds pretty consistent with the American population as a whole. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll last year found that 55 percent of those surveyed consider honesty, integrity and other values of character the most important qualities they look for in a presidential candidate.

More evidence from the front that it may well be time to stop stereotyping evangelicals and start focusing more on our shared values.

The Evangelical Leaders Survey is a monthly poll of the board of directors of the National Association of Evangelicals. They include the CEOs of sixty denominations and representatives of a broad array of evangelical organizations including missions, universities, publishers and churches.

July 07, 2008

Mainline Protestants Leaving GOP

Much ink has been spilled and plenty of research done about white evangelical, Catholic and Jewish voters' swing potential this year. Now, a closer look at last month's study from Calvin College's Henry Institute turns up another religious demographic that's breaking away from their traditional voting habits -- mainline protestants (a group historically tilted toward the GOP).

According to the study, 46 percent identify as Democrats and 37 percent say they're Republicans. It's the first time more mainliners have identified with the Democratic party since the New Deal (that's a big deal).

And this has not been a knee-jerk, election year reaction to Obama's use of some Jesus words. A recent Christian Century piece identifies mainliners' steady "slippage" from the Republican ranks. John Dart notes that through 2000, half of mainline Protestants saw a Republican in the mirror but by 2004, the GOP's advantage had slimmed down to 44-38.

For an explanation, Dart looks to Calvin's Corwin Smidt, who says "Social justice issues and the Iraq war might have been the major influences for change by centrist mainline Protestants."

Dart notes some historical context, as well:

Mainline churches were known for having activist leaders who called for change in the social revolutions of the 1960s and 1970s, and in later years brought more women into leadership and struggled with gay issues. "The leadership and clergy acted as the vanguard in the prophetic mode," said Smidt, "and maybe over the years this might have had some impact."

For years, members of the Religious Right have used wedge issues in an attempt to paint protestants into a conservative corner. Looks like the strategy is wearing off.

July 02, 2008

Update: Responses to the Obama speech

Yesterday, we gathered a few reactions to Obama's faith-based initiative rollout in Ohio. Responses keep coming in -- here are a few of the most interesting:

Jim Wallis seems to share David Kuo and John DiIulio's guarded optimism. (Wallis was involved with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives before his opposition to the Iraq War rendered him persona non grata.)

Wallis appreciates Obama's "robust vision" and expresses a desire that future efforts don't "get mired in the endless political debates of the past while God's concerns for the weak and vulnerable get ignored," as happened when the Bush administration politicized the office.

A few others from the Beliefnet blogging tree weighed in:
Dan Gilgoff points out the Family Research Council seizing the chance to reiterate its displeasure with Obama's stance on same-sex marriage. Imagine my surprise.

Rod Dreher also explores the same-sex marriage angle, speculating that "the only churches, synagogues, etc., that would be eligible to receive federal funds would be those that have abandoned traditional teaching on homosexuality."

Taking a broader perspective are Beliefnet's Steven Waldman and The New Republic's Damon Linker. While Linker was personally "disappointed" with Obama, he sees a possible evangelical bump:

"Is it possible that the Democratic nominee for president in 2008 is the better Christian candidate? That is the question Obama's speech attempted to plant in the minds of evangelicals voters."

Waldman points out how Obama's community organizing experience could go a long way in shaping his initiative. He also lists three main benefits a faith-based plan provides the candidate:
1. Appeal to evangelicals.
2. Inevitable attacks from the left: "It provides Obama a low-cost way of showing himself not to be a standard-issue liberal (whatever that means these days)."
3. A chance to rebut all those accusations of elitism: "Obama may not be able to bowl, but he sure can pray. And he can't possibly be a Harvard elitist if he's a Man of Faith. Can he?"

No doubt there will be countless more reactions ranging from "how dare he?" to "how daring!" The devil or (in this case) the g-o-d is, as always, in the details. Between now and November, it will be fascinating to see how Obama's ideas take shape (in terms of policy) and take root (with voters, religious and secular).

Amy Sullivan vs. Mark Stricherz: Faith/Politics '08

Two experts, TIME's Amy Sullivan (an evangelical) and journalist Mark Stricherz (a Catholic), discuss faith and politics in the 2008 election.

Addressed:

  • How many votes can Obama’s religious rhetoric gain him? (06:40)

  • Did McCain shoot himself in the foot with Catholics? (03:46)

  • The Obama-Dobson smackdown (03:23)

  • Is abortion still a big deal to Catholics? (07:24)

  • Mark tells Obama to find an anti-feminist Souljah moment (05:13)

  • Which VP picks could sway religious voters? (06:44)

July 01, 2008

Rounding up reactions to Obama's faith-based speech

Barack Obama appeared at Eastside Community Church in Zanesville, Ohio, to announced his plan for involving faith groups in social services. Predictably, reactions have been mixed and have, so far, fallen into a few categories:

Been there, but never got to do that: Perhaps the two most germane commentaries came from John DiIulio and David Kuo, both dissatisfied former heads of Bush's faith-based office.

DiIulio referred to Obama's "principled, prudent, and problem-solving vision" and said the nominee's ideas reminded him of "much that was best in both then Vice President Al Gore's and then Texas Governor George W. Bush's respective first speeches on the subject in 1999."

"Many good community-serving initiatives can be built, expanded, or sustained on the common ground that Senator Obama has staked out for us here," he added.

Kuo, according to the AP, "called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver."

When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy, said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. The question is commitment.

Putting it all in perspective: Beliefnet's Dan Gilgoff called Obama's vision "significant " and said that "In effect, he's out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President's specialty areas--connecting faith and public policy."

Mother Jones' Jonathan Stein said the plan lacked detail and speculated that "[t]here's no reason to suspect that Obama's outreach to evangelicals is insincere, but that doesn't mean I can't point out that it's also politically advantageous. (Translation: This isn't necessarily a pander, but it has the effects of one.)"

And Steve Benen at The Carpetbagger Report compares Obama to Bush: "By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions."

No surprises: Tapped's Tim Fernholz calls Obama's "religious outreach...an organic part of his ideology" while Ben Smith over at Politico writes that "Obama's planned speech today on strengthening government support for religion isn't really a move at all, just an emphasis on a stance he's always held that got less attention in the primary."

Two sides of the same worried coin: Citing disparate reasons, several bloggers expressed definite concern. Dr. Bruce Prescott at Mainstream Baptist compares "promoting faith-based initiatives" to "skating on thin ice" and says Obama's plan would "simply be a different form of religion being blessed by the President in the public square."

Over at Street Prophets, Pastor Dan isn't sold, pointing to a high price tag, Kuo's support and the furthering of "a potent stream of patronage" as sure signs of trouble.

Finally, the it's-all-good response: Rev. Chuck Currie of the UCC, an Obama endorser, points to Obama's promise not to make Bush's mistakes and lauds him for the "willingness to address poverty so directly and to look outside the box for answers to America’s most pressing problems."

CBN's David Brody sees today's speech as part and parcel of an approach to faith that has consistently outpaced John McCain's. Looking at it from a local perspective, Brody says: "what’s really not to like if you’re a religious institution looking to help in the community? If Obama’s plan goes according to plan, they’ll be more money for the taking and a better and more effective way to access it. Sounds like a deal."

What'll day 2 bring?

Wall Street Panjandrums vs. People of Faith

The high priests in the Wall Street Church of Corporatism have issued forth another op-ed fatwa against the majority of Americans who connect their faith to our environment.

In today's Wall Street Journal piece, "Global Warming as Mass Neurosis," editorial board member Bret Stephens rips into the faithful:

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on.

So radical, that idea to consume less and walk more. I guess that would baffle the car service elite.

If he wants to attack folks who care for creation as being "awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society," I can think of tens of million Americans who would accept that critique.

Furthermore, this op-ed shows that the men who wield the most control on the market are more than happy to pay lip service to our religious values, except when, as during the fights over abolition or now over climate change, the results would mean a few less million in their pockets.

The heads of the Wall Street Journal call Americans "Biblical" and "radical" if they drive less, buy less, and walk more. Talk about sophistry. The deniers are not only content to dismiss science, now they attack Americans for their religious values and private decisions over consumption. That's not even good faith in markets, that's panjandrum presumption.

With gas prices only going up and American bodies suffering for lack of exercise, once again it's clear whose health and wealth the Wall Street hoodoos are willing to prey over to make a buck. As market-driven foreclosures escalate, oil speculators spin, and global temperatures rise, look out gas conserving, frugal shopping, radical walkers. To the Wall Street Journal Global Affairs editorial expert: we're the real problem

As campaign issue, heaven can wait

What do you look for in a presidential candidate? A plan for comprehensive health care reform? Clear ideas about energy independence? Maybe personality and character matter most.

What about their thumbs up/thumbs down on who gets into heaven?

Strange as it may sound, this potential qualification has entered the 2008 race, most recently via James Dobson's poke at Senator Obama last week. CBN’s David Brody points to heaven talk as an example that Dobson really
does speak for conservative evangelicals:

For example, Obama has talked before about how he's not sure what happens after he dies, and that good people, even if they don't believe in Jesus, will make their way to Heaven. Yet conservative Evangelicals say that when you believe in Jesus, you go to heaven and that there are not different paths to get there. They believe Obama is confusing Christianity for people truly searching for the truth. And THAT is really the major beef they have with him. They believe the distortion (in their view) is dangerous.

Joseph Farah brings up the same issue in a recent WorldNetDaily column, using Obama's views on heaven as part of his basis that "he doesn't have a clue as to what it means to be a Christian."

And no lesser an inquisitor than Cal Thomas recently penned a column titled "Barack Obama Is Not A Christian," based on Obama's statements of uncertainty about salvation/damnation for nonChristians.

Yet, a look back at the words of a former presidential candidate (and Religious Right beacon of hope) named George W. Bush shows that Obama's not the only nominee who’s ever differed from conservative Evangelical views on the afterlife.

In a 2004 interview with Charlie Gibson (around the 1:36 mark), President Bush said he believes Muslims go to heaven:

When asked if "all major religions are equally true" in a 2000 Beliefnet interview, Bush replied:


I think that we're all God's children, and far be it from me, as a lowly sinner, trying to decide who gets to go to heaven and who doesn't, for example. I mean at one time, in 1994, I said, "My faith says you must accept Christ to go to heaven." And there was a significant backlash because, as typical in politics, the full story wasn't told. And there was a typical backlash amongst, you know, some Jewish people in Texas that basically felt I had said that they can't go to heaven. I worked hard to make it clear to people, far be it from me to tell you I get to decide who goes. I'm working on myself. I'm focused on me.

On December 4, 1998, the Austin American Statesman (article found via Nexis search) reported that Bush said he does not believe heaven is only open to Christians:

Asked if he believes heaven is open only to Christians, Bush said, "No, I don't believe that. I believe God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush."

On several occasions -- as a governor, a candidate, and a president -- Bush clearly created some distance between himself and traditional evangelical views on salvation, even going so far as directly contradicting them on national television. Still, he managed to garner 78 percent of the evangelical vote in 2004.

Beyond that, the recent Pew report shows that 70 percent of Americans say many religions lead to eternal life.

Is a candidate's view of the afterlife a major issue among religious voters, or even just conservative evangelicals? Recent history and polling data suggest not.

Rabbis For Human Rights: Social Justice

"A short film highlighting the work of Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). Rabbis for Human Rights-North America was founded in 2002 by a group of American rabbis inspired by the work of Israeli rabbis committed to defending the human rights of all people in Israel and in the territories under Israeli control: Israelis and Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, and Jews, young and old, rich and poor, citizens and foreigners. RHR-North America is the only rabbinic association in North America dedicated to human rights for all and which represents more than 1,000 rabbis of every Jewish denomination across the U.S. and Canada."